Watson gets the win, but watch out for those clingy relationships
By Geoff Lemon, 21 Sep 2012 Geoff Lemon is a Roar Expert
Australia's batsman Shane Watson plays a shot. AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena
Related coverage
Call me pessimistic, but something leaves me a little concerned after Australia’s first match of this World Twenty20.
Sure, Australia despatched Ireland without trouble, reaching the Irish target of 123 with almost a quarter of an innings to spare. Sure, they did it with seven wickets in hand and never looked like faltering. Sure, Shane Watson played a dominant game.
But if you’ll forgive me for being circuitous, therein lies my dilemma.
See, the word ‘dominant’ is scarcely adequate to describe Watson’s match. The Australian all-rounder opened the bowling. He closed the bowling. He opened the batting. He was vice-captain, led in the field, and was named man of the match.
Watson’s first delivery of the match was a bouncer and a wicket. He came back in the middle of the innings, after Ireland’s O’Brien brothers had just notched a 50 partnership, and dismissed them both in the one over. He returned at the end to bowl the death over, conceding a six but otherwise keeping it tidy.
In between times, he took a fine running catch to get rid of Ireland’s second opener. Then he padded up, strode to the crease, and struck 51 from 30 balls, taking Australia to 1/91 in the 11th over before he was dismissed.
Frankly, no-one else need have bothered to turn up. Watson could have handed a few yellow jerseys round the sparse crowd and had them play-act as teammates.
So while it’s impressive for him, it does lead to wondering whether Australia’s limited-overs setup is too dependent on Watson firing.
The past couple of years have seen Watson flower into the all-rounder that so many had wished he would become. Especially in limited-overs matches, Watson’s bowling became increasingly important and incisive, and his innings have grown in confidence and brute strength.
But his form has accompanied a weaker period for the Australian teams in general, with an indecisiveness about their play and a tendency to record middling results. Wins have relied heavily on Watson, while his failures have often presaged team ones.
In a way, Watson reminds me of Geelong full forward Tom Hawkins. The similarities are apparent: both burly and fair-haired with Captain America looks, both freakishly talented sportsmen who were anointed young.
Both took some time to grow into that potential, and in recent times both have broken through and delivered on that early promise.
But there’s something in the Hawkins case that’s worth considering. Throughout Geelong’s recent years of dominance, they have never really had a dominant forward. In fact, they haven’t had one since Gary Ablett senior retired.
Instead they played with a genuine team effort, with modest forward contributors like Cameron Mooney, James Podsiadly, Nathan Ablett and Brad Ottens. Around that core swarmed Geelong’s many talented small forwards, and a hard-working midfield.
Through five dominant years and three premierships, there was no star goal-kicker – no Wayne Carey, no Jonathan Brown, no Lance Franklin, no Matthew Lloyd. But then this year, as Hawkins began to become a star, his team started to become one-dimensional.
Suddenly there were fewer routes to goal, with Hawkins kicking a bag and a few contributors chipping in. This was fine when he was dobbing six goals straight, but when he was blocked out of the match against Fremantle, his team fell straight out of the finals.
Options and alternatives are crucial. That’s why Australia’s omission of David Hussey looks like such a bad move – Australia’s most versatile player can bat the range between Michael Bevan and David Warner, while also being a bizarrely effective bowler and one of the best fieldsmen the limited-overs game has seen.
Neither Cameron White nor George Bailey has much in the way of international form before them, Warner is a lottery ticket, and Mike Hussey these days jangles as many nerves as he soothes. Dan Christian and Glenn Maxwell might be one pinch-hitter too many.
Watson should want to avoid becoming Australia’s talisman. But as the only truly secure option in Australia’s top order at present, he might not be able to help being made one.
Geoff Lemon is a writer and radio broadcaster. He joined The Roar as an expert columnist in 2010, writes the satirical blog Heathen Scripture, and tweets from @GeoffLemonSport.
The Crowd Says (15) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, Geelong Cats, Shane Watson, Tom Hawkins, World Twenty20

September 21st 2012 @ 3:43am
Johnno said | September 21st 2012 @ 3:43am | Report comment
They beat India 4 zip without Watto last summer.
September 21st 2012 @ 8:45am
Disco said | September 21st 2012 @ 8:45am | Report comment
Geoff’s talking limited overs here.
September 21st 2012 @ 8:11am
JohnB said | September 21st 2012 @ 8:11am | Report comment
That’s the nature of 20/20. One player fires and that’s pretty much all you need (which makes it such a lottery of a game). Could be Warner, Hussey or even Maxwell. Or White, though he always seems to need a bit of time to get in (which adds to the confusion about Hussey D’s absence unless he’s horribly out of form). And a Hogg or a Starc only needs to bowl a couple of good balls and get the benefit of a couple of wild slogs and suddenly they’ve won a match too.
It’s not like we’re quite as dependent on one or two stars as say the WI – for them, Gayle or Pollard fires and they’re in with a big chance, both fail and they’re virtually none.
September 21st 2012 @ 8:56am
Chris said | September 21st 2012 @ 8:56am | Report comment
In other news, James Sutherland is pleased to announce that every minute of the Australian summer is Live and HD on Sky Sports in the UK. If only we had the same here!
September 21st 2012 @ 10:27am
Don Corleone said | September 21st 2012 @ 10:27am | Report comment
You can get a better coverage of cricket in Canada than you can in Australia.
September 21st 2012 @ 6:49pm
AndyMack said | September 21st 2012 @ 6:49pm | Report comment
YES!!!!!
September 21st 2012 @ 9:15am
Brett McKay said | September 21st 2012 @ 9:15am | Report comment
It’s a fair point Geoff. Let’s just imagine for a minute that Porterfield’s hook shot carried another fifteen metres and went for six off the first ball, instead of down Mitchell Starc’s throat. How many times have we seen Watson rattled when a batsman goes after him?
Australia bowled well the other night, as you have to to roll a team inside 20 overs. But I can’t help but carry the nagging feeling that the batting is a double-vulnerability. Get Watson and/or Warner early and you force Australia into consolidation mode, and get both of them and Mike Hussey early and a very brittle middle order becomes exposed.
In some ways, perhaps the worst thing that could happen for Australia was that the openers put on 91 chasing 120-odd, because it meant the middle order were never under pressure. And Australia’s middle order is going to need to fire to be any chance of winning the WT20, I think. And that’s a scary though on curent middle order form, and without David Hussey..
September 21st 2012 @ 7:05pm
Dane25 said | September 21st 2012 @ 7:05pm | Report comment
You nailed it, Brett.
There is way too much pressure on our opening pair. Plus we are miles behind the world in playing the slow men. If there is a half-decent spinner opening the bowling then we seem to have no idea how to aggressively combat the lack of pace.
Add to this, when the wickets fall in an Australian innings of late, they tend to drop in clusters.
“Consolidation mode”. WE LIVE THERE.
Why Dave Hussey is in the side in place of Cameron White has got me absolutely perplexed.
September 21st 2012 @ 2:13pm
McCufflinks said | September 21st 2012 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
This is why exactly why T/20 is a far inferior form of the game. Such a dominant display in a Test would be far rarer and far more remarkable. Really… who cares about T/20.
September 21st 2012 @ 3:05pm
Dan said | September 21st 2012 @ 3:05pm | Report comment
A billion Indians, many of which own or have access to a TV.
September 21st 2012 @ 2:42pm
Bazza said | September 21st 2012 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
I can’t warm to the modern day Australian cricketer. I know, I am a dinosaur, but I prefer the players of yesteryear, they somehow came across as real, not fake. They seemed to worry more about their performance rather than their celebrity. The current mob don’t seem to know if they are Arthur or Martha.
September 21st 2012 @ 2:55pm
tommy said | September 21st 2012 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
I completly agree with you Geoff. Geez I hope John Invererity knows what he is doing with the selection of Bailey because I think everyone in the country would agree that D Huss is a better bat. One question I would pose to Invererity is if you think you need such a quick whitted captain like Bailey, why not just get Micheal Clarke to captain?
Although as McCufflinks says above, its only T20 so I will be pleased if we win but couldn’t give a sh!t if we don’t. Upcoming test Series against the Saffas, Indians & Poms is where its at & what this playing group & selection panel will ultimately be judged on.
September 21st 2012 @ 5:37pm
Rhys said | September 21st 2012 @ 5:37pm | Report comment
I agree with your point about Clarke taking over the captaincy. The argument that he needs to give T20 away to focus on Tests/ODIs just doesn’t wash, for two reasons. Firstly a player like Watson plays in all three forms and has a healthy habit of putting in match winning performances along the way. If he can do it as an allrounder and vice captain, Clarke can do it to as batsman/captain. The second reason Michael Clarke should be back in the T20i frame is his decision to play in the IPL this year. If he’s not to battle weary to play in the IPL, he’s not too battle weary to captain Australia at a T20 World Cup.
Within a couple of years both Hussey brothers are likely to have retired (or be close to it). A steady, experienced hand in the middle order will be at a premium – Watson opening and Clarke at 3 or 4 has a good look to it.
September 21st 2012 @ 4:59pm
lolly said | September 21st 2012 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
Can someone take a look at Hussey’s record with the bat in the past two years at international T20 level? It’s ordinary to put it politely. Sure White is an odd choice, as he’s been in a big hole for quite some time and Bailey isn’t suited to this format and Christian hasn’t got much ability to operate under pressure, but even given all that, David Hussey is a fair enough choice to be dropped purely on the basis of form.
How any of them can say he’s good at playing spin is just bizarre. He’s like Shaun Marsh, can belt mediocre spin around but will be undone against any bowler with a bit of guile and tweak.
Yes, Geoff, we are dependent upon Watson in T20, I would have thought that was obvious. He and Mike Hussey are the keys for Aus.
September 21st 2012 @ 6:52pm
AndyMack said | September 21st 2012 @ 6:52pm | Report comment
Bailey isnt suited to this format?? I dont think Bailey is suited to this sport…..